I have no idea as to this answer I like most of their stuff, maybe the answer is they didn't! But they did make a couple of, not so good songs:yes:

Whats your opinion?

Thanks Daza:music:

Shoot me down if you like but I really don't think much of Abbey Road. It is however considered a classic, so what do I know?

All them to me are crap.

I hate this band.

Demetrio.

Did they ever make a good album!

No - but they made a bad double album. The White Album should have been pared down to one great album. Too much throw away stuff between the two disks.

All them to me are crap.

I hate this band.

Demetrio.

at last, a Cliff Richard fan speaks up!


:D

[QUOTE=Progger;2675122]All them to me are crap.

I hate this band.

Demetrio.[/QUOTE

Hey don't be shy tell us what you really think:D
Never a bad album yes but a few less then thrilling songs.
I'd put Led Zep-The Who-Yes-Queen- and many more ahead of the Beatles as my fave bad.

I'm trying to figure out the infatuation with the Bealtes around here lately?

If I gotta answer this question, I'm gonna have to pick Love Songs, and even then, that isn't really a album in the way I see it since it's a compilation LP, and not an LP they wrote as an LP.

at last, a Cliff Richard fan speaks up!

:D

Maybe Cliff Richards stuff is not all that bad, but I can assure you that my music taste is well more refined than you may think. ;)

Demetrio.

All them to me are crap.

I hate this band.

Demetrio.

Then why did you answer as you certainly aren't being objective now are you? If you hate the band how can you look at there body of work with an open mind.
Sorry but i just don't get it when someone says the Hate The Beatles. I can see someone not liking this Lp or that but there whole body of work?:scratch2:

The answer is.......................... No.

Let It Be is less than spectacular by Beatles standards. For most other groups it would be a triumph. Of course, it still produced three #1 singles and the fabled Rooftop Concert. Not bad for less than spectacular.

You see, the Beatles quit at the peak. Had they kept going, they would have been releasing albums akin to what the Stones and and the Who release- collections of stale drech with one or two ok tunes.

most of what the beatles did i loved, but i also realize to love the beatles you really need to have been there when it all came to pass.

Hey don't be shy tell us what you really think:D
Never a bad album yes but a few less then thrilling songs.
I'd put Led Zep-The Who-Yes-Queen- and many more ahead of the Beatles as my fave bad.

Seconded :thmbsp:

The answer is.......................... No.

Let It Be is less than spectacular by Beatles standards. For most other groups it would be a triumph. Of course, it still produced three #1 singles and the fabled Rooftop Concert. Not bad for less than spectacular.

You see, the Beatles quit at the peak. Had they kept going, they would have been releasing albums akin to what the Stones and and the Who release- collections of stale drech with one or two ok tunes.

Gotta agree with Jack Lord. They knew when to get out and in my opinion never made a bad album. To all the Beatles bashers all I have to say is if they had not come around then it is most likely that YOUR favorite rock band would exist today. Their influence was world wide and lots of kids picked up an instrument because of them. Yes there were a lot of great British bands that were influenced by the blues instead of rock and roll and in turn influenced others but the bottom line is no one outside of their city would have heard them because British artists ususally "died" when they attempted to cross over in the States. That is a fact. The truth is that until The Beatles came along rock and roll was primarily dead and what was being passed as rock and roll were manufactured teen idol acts such as Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell, Chubby Checker etc.. Don't believe me? Then look at the Billboard Top 100 from 1960 - 1963 and then look at it from 1964 - on. Quite a dramatic change!

at last, a Cliff Richard fan speaks up!


:D

That's quite funny.

I'm in the Jack Lord camp. He has convinced me that "Let it Be" is not, technically, "bad."

I think the September release of the new Beatles CDs has triggered Beatles interest here.

Ken

You said it JazaWolf.

In my opinion The Beatles never made a "bad" album.

The Beatles were at the for front of the movement. They continually explored new ways to express their music. The band evolved over time never stagnating like many others. I think that is what made them great and contributed to their overwhelming success.

I find it so funny when my younger friends say they dont like The Beatles not realizing that some of their favorite song were written by a Beatle.

Between them and George Martin, just about everything they did oozes genius.

I would not classify it as "bad", but I see Beatles for Sale as the weakest of the lot.

Seem to me that the originals/covers approach they had been using up until this point had gotten tired -- and after this, we get complete albums of self-penned material like Rubber Soul which are stronger and strengthen the band's identity.

With all due respect. I grow a bit weary of the claims espoused that rock-n-roll somehow owes its life to the Beatles. Rock was born of the blues and soul in America not in the bars of Liverpool and Hamburg and would have survived just fine without them just as it has survived just fine in the 39 years since they broke up.

Were they a big influence? Yes. But they were not the be all end all of rock and roll. For that you need to look past the Beatles and see who was infuencing them.

I'm not a Beatles basher.. in fact I am a huge fan but we need to give credit where credit is due and understand where this music really came from.

Steve



....To all the Beatles bashers all I have to say is if they had not come around then it is most likely that YOUR favorite rock band would exist today. Their influence was world wide and lots of kids picked up an instrument because of them. Yes there were a lot of great British bands that were influenced by the blues instead of rock and roll and in turn influenced others but the bottom line is no one outside of their city would have heard them because British artists ususally "died" when they attempted to cross over in the States. That is a fact. The truth is that until The Beatles came along rock and roll was primarily dead and what was being passed as rock and roll were manufactured teen idol acts such as Frankie Avalon, Bobby Rydell, Chubby Checker etc.. Don't believe me? Then look at the Billboard Top 100 from 1960 - 1963 and then look at it from 1964 - on. Quite a dramatic change!

No.:no:

I thought Let it Be was kind of uneven. It was not bad, there is a few tunes that I liked. Phil Spector produced that album without Paul's permission. He added strings and different musical arrangements to the songs. That is why Paul released the album Let It Be Naked a few years back. They were planning to make an album called "Get Back" going back to their early days. If I remembered correctly some of those songs wound up on Abbey Road and Let It Be. One After 909 comes to mind.

To those guys who hates the Beatles, there never will and never be a band that influenced so much in our culture. The way we dress, hairstyles, sexuality, etc.

My least favourite album is the white album.. not that it hasnt got many amazing songs... but it also has some that is way below "crap" ... (and a waste of good vinyl) to me it could have been an AMAZING 1LP album, but there is enough bad material for them to have dropped a disc)

I do however feel they never made a BAD album... to me they are all classics.. some more than others offcoz :)

I have no idea as to this answer I like most of their stuff, maybe the answer is they didn't! But they did make a couple of, not so good songs:yes:

Whats your opinion?

Thanks Daza:music:

I could do without Yellow Submarine - more of a goofy soundtrack than an album in my view.

all I have to say is if they had not come around then it is most likely that YOUR favorite rock band would exist today.

There needs to be a "Godwin's Law" type of label for this statement. I don't know if I've ever seen a negative Beatle comment not refuted with this arguement.

I'm trying to figure out the infatuation with the Bealtes around here lately?

Mass exodus from SH.tv?

Then why did you answer as you certainly aren't being objective now are you?

How in the world could someone answer a question about music objectively? Music is supposed to convey emotion. That, in itself, should preclude objectivity.

If you hate the band how can you look at there body of work with an open mind.

By the same token, if you blindly love the band how can you look at their entire body of work with an open mind?

Sorry but i just don't get it when someone says the Hate The Beatles. I can see someone not liking this Lp or that but there whole body of work?:scratch2:

A lot of people don't get it when a fan (zealot?) asks something like "did they ever make a bad album?"

FWIW, I don't hate the Beatles. I don't love the Beatles. I take them song by song and I seem to like songs the Beatles fans never seem to mention (e.g. my favorite Beatles song is "When I'm 64").

Ray

at last, a Cliff Richard fan speaks up!


:D

I used to have a girlfriend who was a huge Cliff Richard fan. I think I still have some of his stuff around in some format.

I have most of the early Beatle albums at home I'd almost have to go listen again to answer your question. It has been a long time. Maybe that says something besides I need to find more "listening" time. :music:

Mass exodus from SH.tv?

Lol

Every other thread over there is Beatles or Beatle related. Like mentioned before, it all stems from the recent news of the upcoming Beatles remasters in September.

I don't think they ever made a bad album. Yeah, there's a few songs here and there that don't impress me but to call an entire album bad, no. Even Yellow Submarine, as gimmicky as that album sounds, isn't entirely bad.

I think they are all amazing titles. They had identity, vision, talent and flat out balls to put the music business on their ears. Yes with some help and insights from George Martin and promotion from Brian Epstein, but I think both saw enough special especially in Mccartney and Lennon to let them run with it. These were guys in their 20's. They navigated the psychedelic inflected later 60's with ease, and all the music holds up for the most part, I think it's a testament to their genius.

Now, if the OP asked if the Beatles ever recorded a "bad" song, I'd be able to make quite a long list and offend many a fan. For example, "Bungalow Bill" and other filler on the White Album.

While I like "I Did a Pony," I'm not prepared to argue that it could not be considered "bad." When my drinking buddies and I would see Beatles cover bands back in the day (when I had a large group, rather than a small group, of drinking buddies), we'd always request "I Dig a Pony." No one could play it.

Ken

To all the Beatles bashers all I have to say is if they had not come around then it is most likely that YOUR favorite rock band would exist today.

Hahaha, I have to laugh.... It is very very pretentious from your part to think that bands and artists of my preference such as Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Can, Finch, Eloy, King Crimson, ELP, Renaissance, The Enid, Jade Warrior, Magma, Bo Hansson, Triumvirat, P.F.M., Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Locanda Delle Fate, Quella Vecchia Locanda, Far East Family Band, Brand X, Niacin, Gordian Knot, Isildurs Bane, Solaris, Anglagard, Landberk, After Crying, Present, Univers Zero, Circle, Höyry-Kone, Alamaailman Vasarat, Areknamés, Pär Lindh Project, Quaterna Requiem, Mostly Autumn, Iona, Djam Karet, Liquid Tension Experiment, True Illusion, Uakti, Duofel, Steely Dan, Terje Rypdal, Nils Petter Molvaer, Erik Truffaz, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, Kammerflimmer Kollektief, Ozric Tentacles, Sigur Rós, Massive Attack, Maudlin of the Well, and many, many others, would not exist today if your beloved Beatles didn't have existed. :nono:

Demetrio.

Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Can, Finch, Eloy, King Crimson, ELP, Renaissance, The Enid, Jade Warrior, Magma, Bo Hansson, Triumvirat, P.F.M., Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Locanda Delle Fate, Quella Vecchia Locanda, Far East Family Band, Brand X, Niacin, Gordian Knot, Isildurs Bane, Solaris, Anglagard, Landberk, After Crying, Present, Univers Zero, Circle, Höyry-Kone, Alamaailman Vasarat, Areknamés, Pär Lindh Project, Quaterna Requiem, Mostly Autumn, Iona, Djam Karet, Liquid Tension Experiment, True Illusion, Uakti, Duofel, Steely Dan, Terje Rypdal, Nils Petter Molvaer, Erik Truffaz, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, Kammerflimmer Kollektief, Ozric Tentacles, Sigur Rós, Massive Attack, Maudlin of the Well, and many, many others..

Do you like prog?:D

I'll have to say no. I'm less fond of some than others, the pre-Rubber Soul albums for example, but they certainly aren't bad albums. I think I like Magical Mystery Tour the least but there are a number of great cuts there.

As for the Beatles bashers, well, I guess ya had to grow up in the 60's and 70's and see just HOW influential the Beatles were to appreciate them. Plus there's no accounting for bad taste!

Dang it! I forgot to answer the question.

Yes they made 3 bad albums Anthology 1,2, and 3. I wish I hadn't been caught up in the hype and invested the money I spent on those 3 on more Beatles Vinyl.

I few cool tracks especially the really early stuff but overall just bad albums. IMHO.

Steve

Do you like prog?:D


Just a little... :D :bigok:

you really need to have been there when it all came to pass.


But then you wouldn't have remembered any of it.

there's no accounting for bad taste!

Likewise!! I make mine your words!!! :D

I'll have to say no. I'm less fond of some than others, the pre-Rubber Soul albums for example, but they certainly aren't bad albums. I think I like Magical Mystery Tour the least but there are a number of great cuts there.

As for the Beatles bashers, well, I guess ya had to grow up in the 60's and 70's and see just HOW influential the Beatles were to appreciate them. Plus there's no accounting for bad taste!

Magical Myster Tour is not really an album per se. Side 1 was the music from the film which was released as two EPs in the UK. In the US, they added their current singles which were not on albums to create Side 2 and voila, an album. Similiar to Yesterday & Today and Hey Jude.

But then you wouldn't have remembered any of it.

i remember it very well..allll of it.

I'm trying, but seriously, how many threads do we need bating people into bashing the Beatles? Some of us like the Beatles a lot. Those of us who do understand that there are those who do not share our taste in music. That's fine. But there's really not going to be any "new ground" covered on any of these. It's just another excuse for people to rant about how over-rated the Beatles are.

Ok. We get it. Let's move on.

Please.

Love the Beatles and pretty much everything they ever released.

But, I do think, that whether they intended it that way, or not,---they quit while they were ahead. And if they had hung together for too much longer, they would have started churning out mediocrity.

Dave

Love the Beatles and pretty much everything they ever released.

But, I do think, that whether they intended it that way, or not,---they quit while they were ahead. And if they had hung together for too much longer, they would have started churning out mediocrity.

Dave

I don't think so. Take the cream of their solo album cuts from the 70's and turn them into 70's Beatles albums and you have some very worthy additions to their catalog. Beware Of Darkness, Bangladesh, My Sweet Lord, Photographs, It Don't Come Easy, Uncle Albert, Maybe I'm Amazed, Imagine, Mind Games..... the list goes on and on.

While I like "I Did a Pony," I'm not prepared to argue that it could not be considered "bad." When my drinking buddies and I would see Beatles cover bands back in the day (when I had a large group, rather than a small group, of drinking buddies), we'd always request "I Dig a Pony." No one could play it.

Ken

I Did a Pony - that sounds kinky! Maybe the cover band people were too embarrassed to perform that...

I'm trying, but seriously, how many threads do we need bating people into bashing the Beatles? Some of us like the Beatles a lot. Those of us who do understand that there are those who do not share our taste in music. That's fine. But there's really not going to be any "new ground" covered on any of these. It's just another excuse for people to rant about how over-rated the Beatles are.

Ok. We get it. Let's move on.

Please.

I think this is as much a chance for Beatles fans to say "No, they never made a bad album" as it is for Beatles bashers to say, "Yes, they made terrible albums". If you think it is only a chance for one side to express their opinion, it probably tells us which camp you fall into!


The Beatles may never have made a bad album, but what they made covers a range of "quality", and I think there have been some bad Beatles albums made. There are a lot of relatively unkown Beatles albums out there, which are never mentioned on this forum. I think many of these were made from Bootleg tapes and released after the break-up, but some of them are pretty bad. Presumably they were not made by the Beatles themselves, but by other people eager to cash in on the group's popularity.

It's just another excuse for people to rant about how over-rated the Beatles are.

Ok. We get it. Let's move on.

Please.

Looks to me that this was started by a fan implying that they never made a bad album. Most of the replies have been that they didn't make a bad album. It appears it's more an excuse for Beatles fans to explain to the ignorant who don't "get it" than a rant over how over-rated they may or may not be.

obviously I stole this quote, but it speaks for me

"So much has been said and written about the Beatles — and their story is so mythic in its sweep — that it's difficult to summarize their career without restating clichés that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did. Relentlessly imaginative and experimental, the Beatles grabbed a hold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next six years, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience. Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day, decades after their breakup in 1970."

Mass exodus from SH.tv?

:thmbsp:, plus the remaster announcement, over there guys have already put in for a day off at work, 9/9 i believe. there's some seriously hardcore beatles fans there, some almost scary.

The Beatles did indeed make some bad albums. I personally cannot stand to listen to their pre-Rubber Soul material, since it all sounds very similar, and there's only so much bubblegum pop I can stand. For their later material, Let It Be as an album doesn't work for me. Though I am a fan of the Phil Spectored songs (Let It Be, etc.), the majority of the songs on that album are just filler (Dig It, One After 909, I Dig A Pony, Maggie Mae, etc.) IMO. Even Across the Universe I don't really like.

I disagree with those who say that the Magical Mystery Tour was a bad album. If we're talking about the current CD release (not the original British EP), most of the first half is mediocre (with the exception of I Am The Walrus), and the second half has some of their most well-known songs, like Penny Lane. The movie, though is another story. That's an hour of my life I will NEVER get back. :sigh:

That's quite funny.

I'm in the Jack Lord camp. He has convinced me that "Let it Be" is not, technically, "bad."

I think the September release of the new Beatles CDs has triggered Beatles interest here.

Ken

Overspill from SHF. :yes:

Hahaha, I have to laugh.... It is very very pretentious from your part to think that bands and artists of my preference such as Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Can, Finch, Eloy, King Crimson, ELP, Renaissance, The Enid, Jade Warrior, Magma, Bo Hansson, Triumvirat, P.F.M., Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Locanda Delle Fate, Quella Vecchia Locanda, Far East Family Band, Brand X, Niacin, Gordian Knot, Isildurs Bane, Solaris, Anglagard, Landberk, After Crying, Present, Univers Zero, Circle, Höyry-Kone, Alamaailman Vasarat, Areknamés, Pär Lindh Project, Quaterna Requiem, Mostly Autumn, Iona, Djam Karet, Liquid Tension Experiment, True Illusion, Uakti, Duofel, Steely Dan, Terje Rypdal, Nils Petter Molvaer, Erik Truffaz, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, Kammerflimmer Kollektief, Ozric Tentacles, Sigur Rós, Massive Attack, Maudlin of the Well, and many, many others, would not exist today if your beloved Beatles didn't have existed. :nono:

Demetrio.

If you don't think the Beatles influenced the likes of Pink Floyd, ELP and Zappa in a major way, just to pick a couple of the more prominent groups on your list, well I honestly don't even know what to say.

Check out these lyrics from Let There Be More Light off of Saucerful of Secrets:


The antelope grows hurling back
The servicemen would like to sigh
The memory wentflowing rounds
As lucy in the sky

Hahaha, I have to laugh.... It is very very pretentious from your part to think that bands and artists of my preference such as Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Can, Finch, Eloy, King Crimson, ELP, Renaissance, The Enid, Jade Warrior, Magma, Bo Hansson, Triumvirat, P.F.M., Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Locanda Delle Fate, Quella Vecchia Locanda, Far East Family Band, Brand X, Niacin, Gordian Knot, Isildurs Bane, Solaris, Anglagard, Landberk, After Crying, Present, Univers Zero, Circle, Höyry-Kone, Alamaailman Vasarat, Areknamés, Pär Lindh Project, Quaterna Requiem, Mostly Autumn, Iona, Djam Karet, Liquid Tension Experiment, True Illusion, Uakti, Duofel, Steely Dan, Terje Rypdal, Nils Petter Molvaer, Erik Truffaz, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, Kammerflimmer Kollektief, Ozric Tentacles, Sigur Rós, Massive Attack, Maudlin of the Well, and many, many others, would not exist today if your beloved Beatles didn't have existed. :nono:

Demetrio.

Not only is it not pretentious, it is simple fact. And I would wager that more of the artists you list would claim the Beatles as a significant and direct influance than would not. To suggest otherwise would be like saying The Beatles owe nothing to Elvis or Buddy Holly.

Look up Pink Floyd on allmusic and check under "Influenced By"...

How in the world could someone answer a question about music objectively? Music is supposed to convey emotion. That, in itself, should preclude objectivity.



By the same token, if you blindly love the band how can you look at their entire body of work with an open mind?



A lot of people don't get it when a fan (zealot?) asks something like "did they ever make a bad album?"

FWIW, I don't hate the Beatles. I don't love the Beatles. I take them song by song and I seem to like songs the Beatles fans never seem to mention (e.g. my favorite Beatles song is "When I'm 64").

Ray
I don't love all there work. For a very long time I couldn't listen to Let It Be until I played it the other day for the first time in many years.
As to his being objective my point was and is if you hate a band then your not going to look or listen to them in an objective manner meaning and open mind. duhhhhhhhhhh.

Hahaha, I have to laugh.... It is very very pretentious from your part to think that bands and artists of my preference such as Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Can, Finch, Eloy, King Crimson, ELP, Renaissance, The Enid, Jade Warrior, Magma, Bo Hansson, Triumvirat, P.F.M., Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Le Orme, Locanda Delle Fate, Quella Vecchia Locanda, Far East Family Band, Brand X, Niacin, Gordian Knot, Isildurs Bane, Solaris, Anglagard, Landberk, After Crying, Present, Univers Zero, Circle, Höyry-Kone, Alamaailman Vasarat, Areknamés, Pär Lindh Project, Quaterna Requiem, Mostly Autumn, Iona, Djam Karet, Liquid Tension Experiment, True Illusion, Uakti, Duofel, Steely Dan, Terje Rypdal, Nils Petter Molvaer, Erik Truffaz, Vangelis, Tangerine Dream, Kammerflimmer Kollektief, Ozric Tentacles, Sigur Rós, Massive Attack, Maudlin of the Well, and many, many others, would not exist today if your beloved Beatles didn't have existed. :nono:

Demetrio.

Trust me if the Beatles hadn't happened there is a possibility something like them would have come along but don't kid yourself till they became a cash cow for EMI that ate a lot of shit and to do things the way the suits wanted it done.

As to his being objective my point was and is if you hate a band then your not going to look or listen to them in an objective manner meaning and open mind. duhhhhhhhhhh.


According to dictionary.com, objective, as an adjective, is defined as:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

My point was that music is all about personal feelings, interpretations and prejudices. There is no way to seperate your emotional reaction to a piece of music from that piece of music. Therefore there is no way to truly be objective about it.

The second point was that if you are fanatic about a band then you're not going to look or listen to them with an open mind either so why would the opinion of a Beatles "hater" be any less relevant than that of a Beatles "fan"?

Ray

The second point was that if you are fanatic about a band then you're not going to look or listen to them with an open mind either so why would the opinion of a Beatles "hater" be any less relevant than that of a Beatles "fan"?

Ray

So, you're saying no one's point on this subject is relevant. Couldn't agree more. Sorry I got sucked into such a useless thread.

So, you're saying no one's point on this subject is relevant. Couldn't agree more. Sorry I got sucked into such a useless thread.

Now don't get cranky. :D I'm saying that everyone's opinion is equally relevant whether they like the Beatles or not. The fact that you may or may not like any given band does not mean you can't discuss the music and/or influence of that band.

It seems that some people are reasoning that if you don't like the Beatles then you're biased and you're not allowed to have an opinion on the Beatles and that circular reasoning just doesn't fly. All opinions are equally valid and some have been stated very well in this thread. I don't agree with anyone who says "the Beatles suck" or "the Beatles rule". I have the utmost respect for someone who says "I don't much like the Beatles but 'Norwegian Wood' is a great song, IMO" or "I like most all the Beatles albums but the White Album just doesn't flow for me, I feel it has too much filler".

Am I making sense? Or just contributing to the uselessness?

Now don't get cranky. :D I'm saying that everyone's opinion is equally relevant whether they like the Beatles or not. The fact that you may or may not like any given band does not mean you can't discuss the music and/or influence of that band.

It seems that some people are reasoning that if you don't like the Beatles then you're biased and you're not allowed to have an opinion on the Beatles and that circular reasoning just doesn't fly. All opinions are equally valid and some have been stated very well in this thread. I don't agree with anyone who says "the Beatles suck" or "the Beatles rule". I have the utmost respect for someone who says "I don't much like the Beatles but 'Norwegian Wood' is a great song, IMO" or "I like most all the Beatles albums but the White Album just doesn't flow for me, I feel it has too much filler".

Am I making sense? Or just contributing to the uselessness?

IMHO I do not believe anyone has said that. Example- I do not really dig YES. But a great many people do and more importantly, I have a good enough ear to recognize that there is something appealing there. Thus, I do not state that "Yes Sucks", at least not with any seriousness.

So, if the Beatles' accomplishments are plain to see, which they are, then it is not unreasonable to expect at least a grudging respect. They have indeed sold millions of records and most rock groups, rock critics and rock fans would cite them as the best. In short, they have the objective evidence on their side.

That leaves the subjective aka "Taste." Well if you do not like the Beatles, you don't. But all things considered, to say they suck, well, that is simply dishonest. Therefore, I am left with the conclusion that anyone who vehemently dislikes them and feels the need to loudly state it at a party or on the web, has an ulterior motive.

It is also comical that certain folks will state their dislike and then blather on about bands like Pink Floyd who owe almost everything to the Beatles. If such people cannot see the influence the Beatles had on Floyd, well, then they need to grab the headphones, think very, very carefully, and perhaps reconsider what is a very, very ignorant statement.:scratch2:

Not a sermon. Just some thoughts.:music:

I know this much. The Beatles electrified the western world in all manner of ways that no one else could have. Bob Dylan went electric because of the Beatles and this at a time when some people think the Beatles were 'bubblegum' (they weren't). They managed to get all types of arty and intellectual types who hated rock n roll turned on to rock and all its infinite possibilities. They gave birth to stadium rock at Shea Stadium - no one else was big enough to do that though I'm not sure if stadium rock is a good thing! If the Beatles never happened, I doubt if anyone else from the time would have achieved anywhere near the success and influence of them. They really did change the course of music and cultural history for the better! The world would be a much poorer place in so many ways if the Fab Four had never happened.

And they never did make a bad album either. To think that they recorded all their stuff over 7 years. Some bands produce one album over 7 years, most 2-3 at best. They were a good little rock n roll band. If you don't like them, that's cool but their importance is set in stone and can't be denied!

If you don't like them, that's cool but their importance is set in stone and can't be denied!
:yes: :thmbsp:

I do not think they made a bad album, either.

I don't understand WTF all these questions about the the Beatles and Floyd are all about. :no:

It's a free world an all, but is my opinion about a band that hasn't played in decades mean anything to anyone reading this?

If it does, I apologize and am guilty of thread crapping :tears:

What current or recent band has had or will have the impact on music (not to mention upon popular culture) that the Beatles had in their time (being an old fart, it was my time, too)? I am not the world's biggest Beatles fan, but a fan none-the-less; it may be difficult for younger folks to understand the effect of this band, but for those of us who were there, love 'em / hate 'em, the impact cannot be denied.

That leaves the subjective aka "Taste." Well if you do not like the Beatles, you don't. But all things considered, to say they suck, well, that is simply dishonest.

I think we agree, I just may not be very good at getting my meaning across. After all, it's nothing to get hung about. Right? :thmbsp:

Ray

I don't think so. Take the cream of their solo album cuts from the 70's and turn them into 70's Beatles albums and you have some very worthy additions to their catalog. Beware Of Darkness, Bangladesh, My Sweet Lord, Photographs, It Don't Come Easy, Uncle Albert, Maybe I'm Amazed, Imagine, Mind Games..... the list goes on and on.

Touche'!
I stand corrected.

Dave

Some were just better than others depending on how you relate to the music.

I know that Abbey Road was recorded after Let it Be because George Martin wanted them to do better. And they did. Sgt Pepper was a huge work for them and is one of the greatest records of our lives. Was Revolver better? I think some of it was but thats just me.
Magical Mystery tour was all out takes but my mom bought it for me for Christmas so it is special to me.

There will never be a band like them again. All the great rock that is here today came after the Beatles made the music fab! They started it all.